Suits against somebody with diplomatic immunity can not be maintained until after immunity is lost. She got temporary immunity, for one day, as a "counselor" to the UN. That day was enough to have charges temporarily dropped. She can be re-indicted now that she does not have immunity.

I am tempted to expel the UN as too much trouble, but I imagine American intelligence agencies like having all those people under surveillance.

AverageAmericanGuy:My understanding is that the police in America can do anything they want and resisting them is illegal. The only recourse you have is to sue them after the fact.

This is just plain false. Why do people conflate capability with authority? It's like saying "my understanding is that in America people can break into your house, beat you up, and steal your stuff. The only recourse you have is to press charges against them afterwards."

Police can't do whatever they want, and you are legally allowed to stop them from doing anything outside the scope of their authority.

nmrsnr:AverageAmericanGuy: My understanding is that the police in America can do anything they want and resisting them is illegal. The only recourse you have is to sue them after the fact.

This is just plain false. Why do people conflate capability with authority? It's like saying "my understanding is that in America people can break into your house, beat you up, and steal your stuff. The only recourse you have is to press charges against them afterwards."

Police can't do whatever they want, and you are legally allowed to stop them from doing anything outside the scope of their authority.

Police perform illegal searches all the time and get away with it despite swearing to uphold the Constitution - IV Amendment be damned.

nmrsnr:AverageAmericanGuy: My understanding is that the police in America can do anything they want and resisting them is illegal. The only recourse you have is to sue them after the fact.

This is just plain false. Why do people conflate capability with authority? It's like saying "my understanding is that in America people can break into your house, beat you up, and steal your stuff. The only recourse you have is to press charges against them afterwards."

Police can't do whatever they want, and you are legally allowed to stop them from doing anything outside the scope of their authority.

Really? maybe in fantasy land but here in realityville, good farkin luck

ZAZ:Suits against somebody with diplomatic immunity can not be maintained until after immunity is lost. She got temporary immunity, for one day, as a "counselor" to the UN. That day was enough to have charges temporarily dropped. She can be re-indicted now that she does not have immunity.

I am tempted to expel the UN as too much trouble, but I imagine American intelligence agencies like having all those people under surveillance.

the U.N. didn't grant her the immunity... the U.S. state department colluded with the Indian foreign ministry and used the U.N. as a cover to do what they wanted. So outrage here should be based on whether you like State more than the NY prosecutor's office on this issue. But clearly, under Obama, State showed weakness by giving into India's stupidity on this issue and emboldened Putin to take over Crimea.

EdNortonsTwin:nmrsnr: AverageAmericanGuy: My understanding is that the police in America can do anything they want and resisting them is illegal. The only recourse you have is to sue them after the fact.

This is just plain false. Why do people conflate capability with authority? It's like saying "my understanding is that in America people can break into your house, beat you up, and steal your stuff. The only recourse you have is to press charges against them afterwards."

Police can't do whatever they want, and you are legally allowed to stop them from doing anything outside the scope of their authority.

Police perform illegal searches all the time and get away with it despite swearing to uphold the Constitution - IV Amendment be damned.

Politicians don't do very well with the Constitution either. Don't like a law? Just farkin' ignore it.

nmrsnr:AverageAmericanGuy: My understanding is that the police in America can do anything they want and resisting them is illegal. The only recourse you have is to sue them after the fact.

This is just plain false. Why do people conflate capability with authority? It's like saying "my understanding is that in America people can break into your house, beat you up, and steal your stuff. The only recourse you have is to press charges against them afterwards."

Police can't do whatever they want, and you are legally allowed to stop them from doing anything outside the scope of their authority.

That's the letter of the law. The practice, however, is WILDLY different. I don't recommend a simple citizen use force against a governmental agent with qualified immunity, immediate access to superior weaponry, quick access to reinforcements (with similar qualified immunity), and a massive superiority complex.

nmrsnr:AverageAmericanGuy: My understanding is that the police in America can do anything they want and resisting them is illegal. The only recourse you have is to sue them after the fact.

This is just plain false. Why do people conflate capability with authority? It's like saying "my understanding is that in America people can break into your house, beat you up, and steal your stuff. The only recourse you have is to press charges against them afterwards."

she didn't have diplomatic immunity when she allegedly committed the crime or when she was arrested.

India changed her job position immediately (like an hour before) her indictment to one that had diplomatic immunity. She subsequently left the country.

Of course, now the US government is going to declare her persona non grata and make it really difficult (if not impossible) for her to enter the US where her american husband and children are citizens. so sucks to be her i suppose.

nmrsnr:AverageAmericanGuy: My understanding is that the police in America can do anything they want and resisting them is illegal. The only recourse you have is to sue them after the fact.

This is just plain false. Why do people conflate capability with authority? It's like saying "my understanding is that in America people can break into your house, beat you up, and steal your stuff. The only recourse you have is to press charges against them afterwards."

Police can't do whatever they want, and you are legally allowed to stop them from doing anything outside the scope of their authority.

The law against B&E doesn't physically stop people from breaking into your house...

liam76:nmrsnr: Police can't do whatever they want, and you are legally allowed to stop them from doing anything outside the scope of their authority

No you aren't.

If they come to your door and say "Police, let us in" you are legally allowed to say "not without a warrant" and refuse to open the door for them. That is legally stopping them from doing something outside the scope of their authority. I never said you can physically restrain them if they do enter, or open fire on them if they refuse to leave.

nmrsnr:AverageAmericanGuy: My understanding is that the police in America can do anything they want and resisting them is illegal. The only recourse you have is to sue them after the fact.

This is just plain false. Why do people conflate capability with authority? It's like saying "my understanding is that in America people can break into your house, beat you up, and steal your stuff. The only recourse you have is to press charges against them afterwards."

Police can't do whatever they want, and you are legally allowed to stop them from doing anything outside the scope of their authority.

stonicus:The law against B&E doesn't physically stop people from breaking into your house...

Correct, but if someone came up to you and said "my understanding is that in America people can break into your house, beat you up, and steal your stuff. The only recourse you have is to press charges against them afterwards" would you say "yep, that's how it works alright" or would you say "we kind of have laws here that say you can't do that."

Tax Boy:she didn't have diplomatic immunity when she allegedly committed the crime or when she was arrested.

India changed her job position immediately (like an hour before) her indictment to one that had diplomatic immunity. She subsequently left the country.

Of course, now the US government is going to declare her persona non grata and make it really difficult (if not impossible) for her to enter the US where her american husband and children are citizens. so sucks to be her i suppose.

I'm sure she's okay. Good help is so hard to find these days, even in India

nmrsnr:liam76: nmrsnr: Police can't do whatever they want, and you are legally allowed to stop them from doing anything outside the scope of their authorityNo you aren't.

If they come to your door and say "Police, let us in" you are legally allowed to say "not without a warrant" and refuse to open the door for them. That is legally stopping them from doing something outside the scope of their authority. I never said you can physically restrain them if they do enter, or open fire on them if they refuse to leave.

So you were wrong before.

You are legally allowed to say, "no". Physically resisting them is a crime itself, no matter how BS what they are trying to do is.

SDRR:nmrsnr: AverageAmericanGuy: My understanding is that the police in America can do anything they want and resisting them is illegal. The only recourse you have is to sue them after the fact.

This is just plain false. Why do people conflate capability with authority? It's like saying "my understanding is that in America people can break into your house, beat you up, and steal your stuff. The only recourse you have is to press charges against them afterwards."

Police can't do whatever they want, and you are legally allowed to stop them from doing anything outside the scope of their authority.

And get your ass kicked in the process.

or worse.

The good news is, if you do get your ass kicked, you can win a large settlement from the department.

FTFA: "This is the happiest moment of our lives. I have always maintained that this entire issue was a lie. The work done by our foreign affairs ministry is admirable," Mr Khobragade told BBC Hindi.

You DO understand that your daughter wasn't acquitted of the crime she was accused of right? The "happiest moment of your life" is the day you were able to game the system to get your evil spawn off on a technicality?

Please remember that some filthy Americans got to stare at your precious daughter's junk. Nothing your foreign affairs ministry can do about that.

Fusilier:EdNortonsTwin: nmrsnr: AverageAmericanGuy: My understanding is that the police in America can do anything they want and resisting them is illegal. The only recourse you have is to sue them after the fact.

This is just plain false. Why do people conflate capability with authority? It's like saying "my understanding is that in America people can break into your house, beat you up, and steal your stuff. The only recourse you have is to press charges against them afterwards."

Police can't do whatever they want, and you are legally allowed to stop them from doing anything outside the scope of their authority.

Police perform illegal searches all the time and get away with it despite swearing to uphold the Constitution - IV Amendment be damned.

Politicians don't do very well with the Constitution either. Don't like a law? Just farkin' ignore it.

/illegal aliens ftw.

And most Americans Jaywalk, cross against the lights blow through stop signs on their bikes, and speed on the freeways, lie to their mothers and cheat at solitaire. Almost all of that is illegal.

nmrsnr:liam76: nmrsnr: Police can't do whatever they want, and you are legally allowed to stop them from doing anything outside the scope of their authority

No you aren't.

If they come to your door and say "Police, let us in" you are legally allowed to say "not without a warrant" and refuse to open the door for them. That is legally stopping them from doing something outside the scope of their authority. I never said you can physically restrain them if they do enter, or open fire on them if they refuse to leave.

I can't find the article at the moment but a Farkers (I forget who) cousin tried that when the police came to his door without a warrant. They executed him in his hallway.

nmrsnr:liam76: nmrsnr: Police can't do whatever they want, and you are legally allowed to stop them from doing anything outside the scope of their authority

No you aren't.

If they come to your door and say "Police, let us in" you are legally allowed to say "not without a warrant" and refuse to open the door for them. That is legally stopping them from doing something outside the scope of their authority. I never said you can physically restrain them if they do enter, or open fire on them if they refuse to leave.

nmrsnr:AverageAmericanGuy: My understanding is that the police in America can do anything they want and resisting them is illegal. The only recourse you have is to sue them after the fact.

This is just plain false. Why do people conflate capability with authority? It's like saying "my understanding is that in America people can break into your house, beat you up, and steal your stuff. The only recourse you have is to press charges against them afterwards."

Police can't do whatever they want, and you are legally allowed to stop them from doing anything outside the scope of their authority.

Indiana Supreme Court ruled otherwise a couple years ago. Citizens have no valid way to refuse illegal orders from LEOs there, the only remedy is a lawsuit after the fact.

This was because someone assaulted someone else, it was reported, the person who reported it then refused to cooperate with police and the homeowner refused to let cops in to find the assaulter. The police went in anyway and arrested the guy. The homeowner was also arrested, even though she was in the right to refuse entry under Indiana law since nobody would identify the assailant to the cops on the scene and what was told to dispatchers didn't provide reason to search without a warrant.

Supreme Court ruled in favor of the police saying that illegal or unconstitutional orders had to be followed at the time given and nobody has the legal right to refuse to cooperate. If they do they can be arrested for obstruction and at that point lose their right to Sue.

All2morrowsparTs:durbnpoisn: Pfft... The whole diplomatic immunity thing is stupid. If you do something that is illegal, you should be held accountable for it.

I have nothing more intelligent to add.

It is meant to protect diplomats from trumped up charges and avoid international incidents.

^THIS^ It is easy to hear about the abuses, but imagine being a US diplomat in some foreign hellhole (and don't say we don't need diplomats there as these are often where we need them the most) you sure want diplomatic immunity against the whims of the local dictator

I honestly dont know why this was even an issue.The worker was not an US citizen. Why in the world would we expect an Indian citizen to pay another Indian citizen US wages just because they are in the US working as an agent of their government.Stupid. The cost of labor is so cheap over there the person was probably happy to have a freaking job.